After extracting apology from “HanAs**holeSolo”, CNN reserves right to expose him.

Share this story

The alleged source of the animated GIF of Donald Trump beating down WWE Chief Executive Vince McMahon with a CNN logo superimposed on McMahon's face deleted many of his posts to Reddit. He also issued an apology on /r/the_donald for his trolling activities after being tracked down by the production team of CNN's KFile.

CNN reported on the source, who uses the Reddit username "HanAssholeSolo," and reserved the right to expose his identity later if he did not change his online behavior.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo’s" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

That implied threat led to a widespread negative response, with some accusing CNN of bullying or blackmail. CNN later issued a statement, saying that the individual's name had been withheld for his safety and no deal was reached. Hacker, troll, and self-described white supremacist Andrew “weev” Auernheimer has threatened, through the white supremacist site The Daily Stormer, to dox CNN’s reporting team and its family members. Auernheimer is a fan of the Trump tweet, including the photoshopped WWE video.

Further Reading

“Just like CNN tracked down this child and used media exposure as a bludgeon against him for posting (truthful and funny) things that they don’t like, we are going to begin tracking down their families as a bludgeon against them for publishing (seditiously fraudulent) things that we don’t like,” Auernheimer wrote. He demanded CNN “fix this” by firing the KFile , denouncing the threat in the story, and by giving HanAssholeSolo a $50,000 college scholarship and assurances that “he and his family will never be harmed by your organization.”

CNN reports that the individual behind the video is not a teenager, as Aurheimer implied, but an adult male. But the questions as to why CNN’s editorial team felt compelled to place the network at the center of the story, and then publish what could be interpreted as an implied threat instead of reporting the individual’s name outright, remain. CNN did not respond to an Ars request for comment; if CNN makes a statement, Ars will update this story.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

To note, the response to "well, we'll go after their families" is eerily similar to ISIS and also trump's famous quote saying we should go after the terrorists' families to which the US military said "we won't obey that order"

It's in the public interest to report the connection between Trump and alt-right trolls, because the 45th President of the United States is an alt-right troll.

However, reporting the real-life identity of an alt-right troll that inspired the President is not in the public interest, because the President wasn't aware of that. It doesn't matter if he's a Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan, because Trump didn't know that. There's no public interest argument here, so CNN should not have doxxed him in the first place.

It is relevant to report his history of hate speech, because Scavino and Trump could have been aware of that. But his actual identity is irrelevant.

CNN needs to apologize profusely for their statement. That isn't something a genuine news organization does. Either the guy's name is newsworthy or it isn't and "nice reputation you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it" should be beneath them.

Actually, I was rather surprised that they decided NOT to publish his identity, having obtained it. I'd prefer to have these trolls dragged out from under their bridges and into the sunlight, for all to see.

"But the questions as to why CNN’s editorial team felt compelled to place the network at the center of the story, ... , remain"

Feel like that part of the question can be answered by pointing out the CNN is literally in the GIF receiving the beatdown. They are at the centre of the story, along with the HanAssholeSolo guy, and Trump/admin/social media team.

The implied threat was clearly ill advised, but the reaction has been massively disproportionate.

You interact in a public forum and you lose the expectation that your words can't be used against you. If you're so scared people will find out you were saying it, then maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place. More evidence to support G.I.F.T., I suppose.

On the other hand, CNN should have just gone ahead and named and shamed instead of making a threat.

No. Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

We all get outraged by the ignorant things people say and do online, but witch hunts and vigilantism can hurt innocent people, and personal information found online (and elsewhere) is often false or out of date.

Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company. But don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or upvote obvious vigilantism.

It's in the public interest to report the connection between Trump and alt-right trolls, because the 45th President of the United States is an alt-right troll.

However, reporting the real-life identity of an alt-right troll that inspired the President is not in the public interest, because the President wasn't aware of that. It doesn't matter if he's a Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan, because Trump didn't know that. There's no public interest argument here, so CNN should not have doxxed him in the first place.

It is relevant to report his history of hate speech, because Scavino and Trump could have been aware of that. But his actual identity is irrelevant.

I tend to agree with this position. Question: does our answer change if (say) the guy who made/promulgated this had been found by CNN to be a paid foreign agent? Should it?

In other words, does the public interest argument hinge to some extent on whether the person in question is a member of that public?

No. Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

We all get outraged by the ignorant things people say and do online, but witch hunts and vigilantism can hurt innocent people, and personal information found online (and elsewhere) is often false or out of date.

Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

Public figures can be an exception to this rule, such as posting professional links to contact a congressman or the CEO of a company. But don't post anything inviting harassment, don't harass, and don't cheer on or upvote obvious vigilantism.

And any of that would matter if CNN was trying to post on reddit.

But they aren't. CNN tracked down this guy that created something that POTUS retweeted and found out he's posted a whole lot of crappy-ass stuff. When pressed for his side, he ended up apologizing and, as is the purview of any reporter or news organization, CNN chose to not publish his identity as part of that apologetic deal.

CNN is under no obligation to protect his identity, nor would their deal be valid if the meme-creator guy decides to renege on their agreement.

My guess is that CNN originally intended to publish his name which would have been fine because the story has public interest and its really no different than various sting operations run on certain channels to expose "bad" behavior. Something made them decide not to publish his name - perhaps his apology swayed them or he begged so hard they gave in. Maybe he has a clinical diagnosis and some sort of excuse for his behavior.

So they decide not to publish but want him to know they might still do that if he breaks his word. I see nothing wrong here.

Where they erred was by making that public statement which could be seen as a threat. They should just have let him know privately.

the guy clearly dog whistled though. what should cnn do when someone was clearly trying to endanger the lives of some of cnn's reporters? I am not saying they are right, but it does ask some useful questions.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the user's identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

It was definitely pretty lame of Trump to retweet the gif, but it seems like CNN collectively forgot what a "metaphor" is. Obviously he was just attempting to brag about his ongoing media feud exploits. Blowing this out of proportion is giving him what he wants...

It was definitely pretty lame of Trump to retweet the gif, but it seems like CNN collectively forgot what a "metaphor" is. Obviously he was just attempting to brag about his ongoing media feud exploits. Blowing this out of proportion is giving him what he wants...

This would be a more compelling argument if I did not live in a country where a sitting member of Congress recently plead no contest to assaulting a reporter.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the user's identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

I'm honestly confused by the whole thing. Perhaps I spend too much time on the internet, but memes like this are shared constantly over social media. My facebook feed is full of them.

The only difference appears to be that trump himself shared it.

Is CNN actually concerned about a dumb wrestling gif with a shoddy photoshopped logo?

If people are really taking this seriously, they must stick to pretty bland websites. Personally, it seems like ridiculous manufactured outrage on both sides.

Too many rustled jimmies.

I don't really see a problem with them reporting what the president tweeted and that it comes from t_d user with questionable background. But going beyond that and contacting the user is a bit over the line.

I'm honestly confused by the whole thing. Perhaps I spend too much time on the internet, but memes like this are shared constantly over social media. My facebook feed is full of them.

The only difference appears to be that trump himself shared it.

Is CNN actually concerned about a dumb wrestling gif with a shoddy photoshopped logo?

If people are really taking this seriously, they must stick to pretty bland websites. Personally, it seems like ridiculous manufactured outrage on both sides.

Too many rustled jimmies.

No, they wanted to talk to the creator because this person was now a thing and wanted get his response to being retweeted by President Grandpa. They weren't concerned until they took a look at this person and found that he's a total piece of garbage.

While I'd agree that CNN's snippy threat was out of line, it's a minor sin that's being amplified in order to distract from the very real problem at the center of this, namely, the subtle and not-so-subtle advocacy of violence, hate, and other attacks on free journalism that have been ramping up steadily under this presidency, often voiced directly by the president.

Now, there's certainly a conversation to be had about privacy and speech on the internet, and I do think that some people have taken the internet as a license to say whatever shit they want without expecting any repercussions - and ultimately, I don't think that really works for a society. There have to be some boundaries, some norms, and I really don't buy the guy's excuse after he got caught, because he sure was fine with all his sh*tposting up to that point. Does that mean he deserves whatever happens to him as a result? I'm not honestly sure, but as I said, there's a conversation to be had about it. I do however think that it's not necessarily for CNN to use that in a threatening manner, which is how they came across with it, whatever their intent was.

This was a story about how a guy with tons of racist comments made a gif our President shared. It wasn't about the gif itself.

I imagined this conversation being something like "we are going to write this story do you have a comment?"

"Oh god please don't tell them my name I'll take it all down and never do it again please this will ruin my life and my family and I'll never be able to find a job please please"

And like Frodo looking upon Gollum and taking pity on the disgusting creature they let this racist coward off the hook but stipulated that if he was insincere they'd publish the unedited story.

This all seemed reasonable-ish to me. I would have just published his name regardless, horrible disgusting racists should be outed not protected. He may publicly behave but his private behavior will still be racist.

I thought CNN was being kind.

The entire rest of the internet seems to disagree with the way I see it though.

I'm honestly confused by the whole thing. Perhaps I spend too much time on the internet, but memes like this are shared constantly over social media. My facebook feed is full of them.

The only difference appears to be that trump himself shared it.

Is CNN actually concerned about a dumb wrestling gif with a shoddy photoshopped logo?

If people are really taking this seriously, they must stick to pretty bland websites. Personally, it seems like ridiculous manufactured outrage on both sides.

Too many rustled jimmies.

I don't really see a problem with them reporting what the president tweeted and that it comes from t_d user with questionable background. But going beyond that and contacting the user is a bit over the line.

Yes, now I'm picturing CNN as Jay and Silent Bob at the end of the movie where they fly around and get vengeance on everyone who says/posts something mean on the internet.

What amazes me at the reaction is the double standard in the reactions shown.

Trump tweets a gif that has been altered to show him physically attacking a figure with CNN's logo as their head. - Clearly the implication is a worrying threat towards CNN and the media by an administration that has made continued and unprecedented attacks on the free press, but the reaction on the pro-Trump right has been to swat it away as a humorous metaphorical jab at CNN.

CNN goofs a single sentence in an article that implies they might out a racist if they continue to post racist/anti-Semitic/anti-CNN content (isn't clear which) and the reaction is that CNN is engaging in blackmail and that the journalists involved should be fired.

How do those pushing this 'CNNBlackMail' stance resolve this cognitive dissonance that's on display here?

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the user's identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

Yeah, if you accept the premise that his identity was relevant, then it's justified to say, "We graciously condescend not to report his identity if he's sincere that he's not a racist, but if it turns out he's lying to us, then he's back in the story again".

However, if you don't think his identity was relevant in the first place, then this doesn't compute.

It's true that he made the situation public before CNN did. But the situation shouldn't have arisen in the first place.